Broussard v. Progressive Security Insurance Co.
94 So. 3d 94
| La. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Broussards sue Gateway Dirtworks, C.K. Paul Trucking, Belvin, Lumar, and insurers after a collision with a dump truck used for Gateway's dirt-hauling work.
- Truck was associated with C.K. Paul Trucking, a venture of Belvin and Yolanda Lumar; ownership contested, truck registered to Latoya Lumar.
- Gateway contracted with C.K. Paul to haul materials; Barbara Ruiz dispatched and handled work arrangements; payments to Belvin shown, but trucking arrangement specifics unclear.
- Plaintiffs sought coverage under QBE Insurance for Belvin; trial court granted partial summary judgment finding coverage for Belvin as an insured under QBE’s policy and as a nonowned auto.
- Gateway and QBE contested coverage, arguing truck not a hired auto and that Belvin may not be an employee or insured; trial court’s ruling was questioned on ownership and employment issues.
- On appeal, court reverses, finding genuine issues of material fact exist about (a) whether Gateway hired the truck, (b) ownership of the truck, and (c) Belvin’s status as Gateway employee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether truck is a hired auto under policy l.b | Broussards argue Gateway hired the truck; truck qualifies as hired auto. | Gateway and QBE contend no hire agreement specific to the truck; record insufficient. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude hired auto coverage. |
| Whether Belvin is an insured under the nonowned auto provision | Belvin covered as permissive user of Gateway’s nonowned auto. | Ownership and employment status unknown; nonowned auto coverage not clearly applicable to Belvin. | Issues remain; nonowned auto coverage not established as a matter of law. |
| Whether Belvin was Gateway’s employee or subcontractor | Evidence shows Belvin worked on Gateway projects under Gateway’s direction. | No clear employment contract; Belvin paid via C.K. Paul; ownership questions unresolved. | Material fact questions exist; summary judgment inappropriate on employment status. |
| Whether ownership of the truck affects coverage | Ownership cited but not conclusively resolved; truck may be owned by Belvin and Lumar | Ownership unresolved; could exclude hired auto coverage under l.b(1). | Ownership status unresolved; precludes summary judgment on hired auto issue. |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Insurance Co., 630 So.2d 237 (La. 1993) (footnote evidence on hired autos; not on point for hired auto issue here)
- Huddleston v. Luther, 897 So.2d 887 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2005) (nonowned auto coverage analysis; not controlling for permissive use here)
- Perkins v. Guaranty National Insurance Co., 667 So.2d 559 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1995) (employee driving nonowned auto; distinguishes from permissive use in present case)
- Champagne v. Ward, 893 So.2d 773 (La. 2005) (de novo review standard for summary judgments)